Heres a couple of guys who wouldn't vote for that:
How about people who contract melanoma from excessive tanning?
Skydivers?
People who walk on the wrong side of the road?
Unattended children in grocery carts?
Homosexuals who have unprotected sex in bathhouses?
Crosseyed lumberjacks?
The list is endless...and so are the nannies....
I'm moving to Russia. I hear it's freer now...
Instead of putting this revenue into States general budgets, put it towards health costs of smokers. I don't see any other "high risk" activities being taxed so excessively, except for maybe alcohol.
I see, they want to cut my health benefits because I smoke, but expect me to pay taxes so they can give helath benefits to people with aids, people that take drugs, abuse alcohol, etc..
Screw them.
Ping!
HA! I clicked "Post Reply" based on the title alone! Priceless!!!
A bill refusing tax benefits because of smoking would, on its face, be unconstitutional because it denies equal treatment.
In 1964 when the Surgeon General Terry said that cigarettes are a "causal" factor in lung cancer, heart diseases etc. almost everyone smoked cigarettes.
Anyone who did not smoke was considered "queer." (No Virginia, I mean strange, odd). Now after almost a half century of anti-smoking jihad cigarette smoking has been significantly reduced to probably 3 in 10. Smoking is no longer glamorous, socially acceptable, convenient or cheap.
Question: Now that the smoking war has been won and fewer people smoke, how come the incidences of death by lung cancer, heart diseases have increased, adjusted for population growth? Huh? Huh?
Maybe we owe Joe Camel an apology.
Goo idea then private companies could drop coverage of smokers too
Don't they all?
If they keep pounding on smokers, there won't be anybody left to pay the taxes.